“All I’m saying is let’s have a fair comparison,instead of a skewed one,and that’s why I was critical of that particular report,not of the CSIRO in general,and I think it was a fair point to make.”
Hilton told this masthead on Friday morning that he wrote the open letter to defend the scientists who produced the GenCost report and,by extension,CSIRO’s mission to serve society.
“When you cop criticism,when your integrity is questioned,that can have a big impact on individuals and,if left unchecked,it can have a big impact on the community.”
Hilton said CSIRO was “absolutely technology neutral” and asked politicians to respect science and work with his agency on its mission to resolve challenges confronting Australia.
“As an organisation we should never be shy of leaning into contentious areas.
“The role of CSIRO is to present the community and all of our elected representatives and government with the best possible data and models on which to found their policies.
“I’d ask of all of our elected representatives to treat the scientists and the science that comes out respectfully and don’t disparage the science when you’re having a policy debate.”
Nuclear advocates have criticised CSIRO reports for not incorporating the costs of tens of billions of dollars of transmission lines needed to link the growing fleet of wind and solar farms across the country into population centres.
The opposition is calling for a moratorium on the renewable rollout,claiming local opposition to transmission lines has crippled its social licence while arguing the infrastructure costs are too high.
CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton has defended the organisation from criticism by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.Credit:Martin Ollman
However,CSIRO’s latest GenCost report included more than $30 billion of new transmission lines and projects to provide back-up power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining,such as the$12 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro dam.
Loading
GenCost found that by 2030,a grid with 90 per cent wind and solar power would generate electricity at $70 to $100 a megawatt hour.
Coal generation is more expensive at $85 to $135 a megawatt hour in 2030.
Small modular reactors,a nascent technology not yet in commercial use but favoured by the opposition,would generate electricity at a cost of $210 to $350 a megawatt hour in 2030,CSIRO said.
The opposition also wants to see large scale nuclear reactors plugged in to Australia’s energy grid.
The GenCost report did not calculate a cost for large-scale nuclear,but addressed the argument that Australia should follow the lead of countries that use it such as France,the United Kingdom,the United States,Canada,Spain and South Korea.
CSIRO said claims of cheap nuclear power in these countries were ignoring the fact that their plants were either funded by taxpayers as opposed to private investors or had been in operation for a considerable time – over which the capital costs had already been recovered.
“Such prices will not be available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia,” the report said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis.Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.